Helmet compulsion again

but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one

looking back thru the thread quite a lot of people saying they choose to wear a helmet but don't see the need for compulsion - i'd fit that category

I believe (rightly or wrongly) that wearing a helmet can mitigate the injuries in some accidents but it contributes very little to the safety of cyclists and campaigning for compulsory wear will not fix anything - the major cause of serious injury and death for cyclists is vehicles and the way in which they are driven - here are some simple checks - based on the ever popular "what about the kids"

if helmets were compulsory would it be safer for kids to cycle to school?
- my answer = no it might mitigate the outcome of a collision

if high viz were compulsory would if be safer for kids to ride to school?
-my answer no = high viz just helps those drivers that are already aware of cyclists and other vulnerable road users

If speed limits in urban areas were reduced on all roads and enforced would it safer for kids to ride to school - yes

if drivers had to resit tests every five years would if be safer - yes

if more road space were take away from vehicles and given to cycles would it be safer - yes

a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

Cycling is an "out" activity. Lots of people already avoid it because they believe it is dangerous. Insisting they need safety equipment for a five minute ride to the shop just reinforces this. As would hard hitting adverts about why wearing a helmet is terribly terribly important.

There may be some initial dip - but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet, and getting the coolest one will be the thing to do.

Oh good so it will make cycling more expensive instead of more accessible?

I was having a conversation with someone just the other day that thought the new money released for cycling was ridiculous because "people are struggling to live so how could they possibly afford a bike ???"

dekadanse - Member
Numpties paradise here - sure, lots of people stopped driving after seatbelts were made compulsory, didn't they?

There may be some initial dip - but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet...

not the same at all; if I want to ride the 1/2 mile to the local shop I might decide not to bother with the rather ineffective lump of polystyrene. If I have to use it - I might decide not to bother with the bike and take the car. A better analogy would be - if helmets were compulsory for walking on pavements would you expect more people to drive rather than walk? I would. With seatbelts there was no 'more convenient' option to revert to.

You may think people who disagree with you are "numpties"; but perhaps they have just engaged their brains to understand the issues a bit better before labelling everyone who disagrees.

Helmets don't protect against all accidents and bad drivers - but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one?

eh - you do realise that there is some credible evidence, along with a stack of anecdotal evidence that drivers and cyclists risk compensate because of helmets and therefore wearing a helmet might make you more likely to have an accident (which if it is ineffective protection will make you more likely to get hurt/killed). If you don't believe that to the experiment. Ride a set reasonably busy route (e.g. your commute) every day for a week, with a helmet on. Now repeat for a week with the helmet off. I will be amazed if you can honestly say that some vehicles don't treat you better with no helmet.

Am I safer not wearing one? Depends what I am doing. Am I healthier making short journeys on a bike or in a car? Which is more likely to kill me (I live in Scotland) - Heart Disease or a bike accident...

a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

You'll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread, While you are quite correct that this could be construed as placing the responsibility of road safety onto the cyclist and not the driver, I still think it's a sensible thing for cyclists to wear a helmet on the roads.

You can bring in what laws you like with regards to drivers, but a minorty still drink and drive, a significant amount still use the mobile phone while driving, and an awful lot will still drive like w****rs. I don't know about you, but I don't want more cyclists to be martyred just to highlight bad driving.

As for the whether a helmet is a good thing or a bad thing to wear protection wise, I have seen a few incidents in my time and quite a lot of claret left on the roads, but the helmets did their job as described.

We've had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters. I think we take those arguments against as quite stupid now. Hopefully we look back at this argument in the same way.
Regardless of who caused the accident it's what stops your head from bouncing that causes the damage. Kerbs, lamp posts, signs, tarmac, car wings don't care who caused it and don't forgive innocent parties. Some kind of impact damage is going to decrease the chances of head trauma. Bails picture on the first page is very nice and idyllic but you may notice it's lacking street furniture and isn't in the UK. Until we have cycle paths like that with no street furniture and wide run offs I would prefer to protect myself.
If people don't want to wear one that is up to them. If they take a tumble crack their head on a kerb and spending the rest of their miserable life drooling down their fronts, it was their choice. It won't be their parents/loved ones choice at the time to mop up the drool, sell their assets to look after that child or give up their own life because their child wanted to look cool by not wearing an helmet.
The good thing is there will be good supply of relative fit specimens donating organs. This will really rattle the helmetless rider in the afterlife, if their is such a thing, when their nice healthy lungs are transplanted into a 40 a day ex-smoker, white van man who hates cyclists.

We've had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters.

Except motorbikes don't make you fit. If less people chose to ride motorbikes then that wouldn't have an negative effect on public health.

Bails picture on the first page is very nice and idyllic but you may notice it's lacking street furniture and isn't in the UK. Until we have cycle paths like that with no street furniture and wide run offs I would prefer to protect myself.

So am I allowed to not wear a helmet on my commute, in the UK with wide run offs and no street furniture then?

(note: don't worry - when these pictures were taken I was wearing a full-face helmet, shinpads, elbow and knee guards, spine protector, high viz flouro vest and helmet cover )

because their child wanted to look cool by not wearing an helmet.

It REALLY isn't about "looking cool" - I think that's another strawman argument.

Helmets don't look cool, granted, but then neither does being a sweaty red-faced late-30s overweight man with pale hairy legs poking out the bottom of some overly tight lycra.

Anyone who makes the decision whether or not they should wear a helmet based purely on whether it looks cool or not is an idiot - but I don't see anyone on here espousing that view. Do you?

but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one

I can

I would give up MTB [ ok the gnar] if i could not wear a helmet doing it and that is where i have 99% of my accidents

We've had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters. I think we take those arguments against as quite stupid now. Hopefully we look back at this argument in the same way.

And pedestrians - its just as dangerous to walk
Oh and car drivers they get head injuries as well.
We will look back and see not wearing a helmet all the time as stupid then.

If people don't want to wear one that is up to them. If they take a tumble crack their head on a kerb and spending the rest of their miserable life drooling down their fronts, it was their choice.

Yes stupid pedestrians with their unprotected heads
as for the rest of that emotive tosh. Most folk accept a helmet mitigates risks rather than it ensures you will not end up a dribbling burden on your loved ones.
Most damage to a brain is caused by the deceleration of the head when the skull stops dead and the brain keeps going and hits the inner skull. As skulls are considerably stronger than brains a helmet is unlikely to make a great deal of difference- Does the lad in this incident have a fractured skull or brain damage ?

People die from internal injuries caused to the brain which helmets wont generally prevent

"Motorists who speed, pass too close to cyclists, drive in cycle lanes, fail to look properly while turning and stop in cycle boxes at traffic lights are liable for fines and points on their licence as well as possible jail terms. These offences should be treated seriously by police and enforced more strongly, while cyclists who jump red lights or disobey the rules of the road should also be dealt with according to the same laws. Only a small minority of motorists or cyclists misbehave – most are law-abiding, responsible road users. This must be encouraged."

Unfortunately reporting them is at the moment a waste of time, I've tried.

El-bent - Membera campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything.....
You'll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread, While you are quite correct that this could be construed as placing the responsibility of road safety onto the cyclist and not the driver, I still think it's a sensible thing for cyclists to wear a helmet on the roads.

not sure if you read the OP - my comments were about the appropriateness of a campaign for compulsory helmet wearing (by cyclists) and if this really addressed any safety issues for cyclists ....not if wearing helmets is or isn't sensible

Last two accidents I had involved no other vehicle to blame. Both resulted in damaged helmets. One just scuffed as my head slid down Cutgate (massive run off just full on natural obstacles). From that accident I had broken ribs grazed arms which a helmet wouldn't protect but no facial damage other than dirt and sore neck. The one before that hit a brick with the back of my head. Coming down a cycle path that crossed a small bridge over a stream, child ran onto the bridge without looking so it was either it the girl or avoid. It left a fist size hole in the back of the helmet. No brain damage even though it decelerated from 15+mph to nil in less than a second. I think I would have been drooling down my front and needing care if not for the helmet. That's my proof that helmets work that I'm not in that situation. Please feel free to try these accidents yourself without an helmet. I don't know you and won't be looking after you.

You have no understanding of the issue being discussed. Please read the thread again from the start. Sorry.

Executive Summary: if you're going to bash your head then it's probably best to wear a helmet* - that doesn't mean that helmets should be compulsory or that making them compulsory would save lives overall.

Whether it will or won't happen is irrelevant. You're trying to prove a point based on tugging on the heartstrings of people without using any kind of logical or rational argument. It's a poor way to get your point across and ignores so many other factors that may influence the greater picture of accident causation and resultant effect.

You're trying to simplify a matter so that it becomes a red-top soundbite and something like this has too big an effect, is too complex and potentially influences too many lives to go around blithely mouthing off without considering the impact* of what you're saying.

* For example, if research yet to be conducted demonstrated that risk compensation ended up with far more KSIs than lack of helmet wearing. NB I don't know if it does or not, but I'm not willing to argue it isn't important based on personal anecdotes and the mythical army of "dribbling patients" wheeled out to support the point.

(and yes, that 10% inactivity *could* be made up with activities other than cycling, but who's to say they are safer? Injury rates per mile are just as high for walking as for cycling. It'd therefore be important to also mandate helmet use for walking. Oh, and armbands for swimming.)

Oh and the big fallacy that its safe on a bike in Holland, with 200+ deaths in 2011 it is worse than the UK by almost 100%.

haha, just got to that fantastic FACT. I love how you can disregard the fact that:

There are more bicycles than residents in The Netherlands and in cities like Amsterdam and The Hague up to 70% of all journeys are made by bike.

I wear blue shoes and have never been bitten by a poisonous spider, lots of people in the world however have, from this data I have hypothesized that blue shoes make you INVISIBLE TO POISONOUS SPIDERS.

On the old note, I wear a helmet all the time anyway. I'd have zero issue with them enforcing it on roads from a personal perspective. Quoting figures of children sat on the sofa really doesn't concern me, should they be out grinding Strava segments on busy roads?

It's a shame that a road accident instantly backfires into a completely irrelevant conversation. Rather than focusing on the massive systemic problems with road/bikes at the moment, the focus lays straight on the fact he didn't have any polystyrene on his head.

I'd have zero issue with them enforcing it on roads from a personal perspective. Quoting figures of children sat on the sofa really doesn't concern me

I don't really see the relevance though. Lawmakers need to consider the overall effect of the law. It's not about any individual's personal perspective.

And no, the kids shouldn't be out grinding out strava segments, that's a straw man. But if they're riding bikes rather than sitting on the sofa, there's a benefit to them, and a wider benefit to society.

Where is your control? You have no actual proof - thats a mute point no one is denying a helmet absorbs the impact what we are debating is whether it will save your life- or in your case stop someone from drooling. You have yet to prove that point.

Please feel free to try these accidents yourself without an helmet. I don't know you and won't be looking after you.

Its to simplistic to suggest that every single crash you had with a helmet it saved your life.

For example my worst accident involved OTB and splitting my helmet. I was still knocked out and still need 4 stitches for a facial wound. I did ride off the mountain though. Without it I would imagine I would have possibly needed mountain rescue/to be walked off but it would not have been life threatening - though of course like your example this also lacks a control so we cannot be certain.

Just out of interest would you have cycled either of those routes without a helmet?

Where is the control sample any of the other arguments against wearing an helmet. Why don't you try to recreate your OTB accident and let us know the outcome.
My point was I would rather take a lesser risk of damaging my head with some kind of impact protection than not.

The helmet saved my life argument is answered by looking at the fatalities during the century the TdF has been run. Mostly before helmets. A drowning (rest day), a drug induced heart attack, one crash down a ravine, and one crash at 55mph. Otherwise thousands of crashes at a relatively high speed for cycling has not resulted in a single death.

It can happen, but you are extremely unlikely to kill yourself without the help of a motor vehicle.

Or as it is put at cyclehelmets.org

It's not a simple matter to draw conclusions about the benefit a broken or deformed helmet might have provided in a crash. However, the fact that serious injury to unhelmeted cyclists is as rare as helmet damage is common, suggests that most of the claims of benefit from damaged helmets are likely to be exaggerated.

The bottom line is, if you make helmets compulsory, less people will cycle. This leaves the rest of us even more of a minority, and treated even worse by certain motorists.
As people have said already, we need to make the roads safer, not force the innocent parties to wear more protection.